Irene Mathyssen

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today as we mourn victims of violence at École Polytechnique, we also mourn the violence that permeates our society. Aboriginal women are among those who experience the keenest edge of this violence, which is rooted in colonization, assimilation and cultural genocide.

While we have recognized the great harm we have done to aboriginal women, there is still the lingering violence that manifests itself in the chronic lack of decent housing, educational opportunity and economic security.

This has been going on for generations. Aboriginal women themselves speak most eloquently to this. Ms. Marlene Pierre of the Robinson Superior Treaty Women's Council told parliamentarians, “Women are saying the same damn things we said 50 or 60 years ago. Why? What are you people doing that will have some meaningful impact?

The violence continues.

[Seniors, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, seniors have paid their dues to our country, but the government demonstrates over and over again that seniors just are not a priority.

Fortunately, the NDP is listening to seniors. We held a round table discussion this morning to hear first-hand about the challenges seniors face. That is in contrast to the government's attitude of ignoring seniors' needs for affordable housing, pension security and pharmacare.

Why does the government refuse to allow our seniors to age with dignity?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the parliamentary secretary said that this was a very important bill. I wonder, if it is so important, why are we allowing only three hours of debate at third reading. It would seem to me that it deserves far more.

One of my questions pertains to her remarks regarding the section that deals with child sexual assault. We agree, on this side of the House, that it is very important to protect our children. If it is so important to the government, why, when the opposition agreed to separate this part of the bill so it could have speedy passage, did the government refuse, and is now dragging things through the Senate when we could have had this piece of the act in place long ago and protected our children?

[Seniors, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors built this country, but the government is letting too many older Canadians live in poverty. An HRSDC study found that, despite being eligible, more than 125,000 seniors are not receiving the old age security benefits they deserve. The government has known this since 2009. It has known about the problems in the program.

Why has the government not acted to ensure that all Canadian seniors receive the benefits to which they are entitled?

[Employment, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, London is my community. Despite suggestions from a member opposite to the contrary, I am proud of my city and I am especially proud of the people of London for their show of resiliency, determination and optimism when faced with some very difficult challenges. However, pride in one's city does not mean that we can ignore reality.

My city has been hit hard by the economic downturn. Jobs have been lost. In southwestern Ontario, 10,000 jobs have been lost in the last five years, most in the manufacturing sector. Families are hurting and we cannot sugar-coat the issues faced by so many in my riding. London has an unemployment rate of 9.1%. There is a proposal to open a satellite welfare office in the east end. We need a federal government focused on job creation, not tax cuts; jobs in energy conservation, transit, alternative energy and green manufacturing. The people of London matter and deserve no less.

[Affordable Housing, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, 14,000 renovations are not new homes.

Today is National Housing Day, another reminder that the out-of-touch government is failing families. A staggering 1.5 million Canadian households are at risk unless the government commits to more affordable housing. Aboriginal communities are living in tents, seniors are still paying for mortgages, families are falling deeper into debt. Yet the government's so-called plan is too little too late.

When will the government get serious about our housing crisis? When will the government implement a real national, affordable housing strategy?

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is very clear. In the last election the Conservative Party garnered 38% of the vote and the rest of Canadians, 62%, voted for other parties.

I have profound concerns about the democratic nature of that. New Democrats have long proposed proportional representation. We think that is the way to make every vote count.

Even more to the point of the gerrymandering of our democracy, both here in the House with time allocation motions and in committees with all kinds of less than democratic means, the Conservatives are undermining what Canadians believe they have, a democratic state.

One of my real concerns, and I think this has been voiced, is in appointing Conservative-friendly senators. Even when this Conservative government is gone--and let that be soon; it cannot come quickly enough--even after it is long gone, there will be that Conservative Senate interfering with the democratic processes in this House by simply voting down legislation that matters, like Mr. Layton's climate change bill and the bill that would have delivered drugs for people suffering from AIDS, malaria and measles in Africa.

We should be ashamed that happened. Yet we have this legislation in front of us that shows no shame, and in fact supports an institution that has clearly been derelict in any kind of duty to Canadians.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, there clearly will be significant challenges to face in terms of the Constitution.

When I was a member of provincial parliament, we looked at the Charlottetown accord, and realized that any time we take on changes to the Constitution, we face real difficulties.

The point is that Canadians have been very clear. This is an antiquated institution that many Canadians are just not willing to pay for any more.

We would consult with Canadians. We would talk to the provinces. We would find a way of doing it and making sure that the concerns of the people across this country were addressed, while respecting their very clear wish that we move into the 21st century and leave this less than sober second thought bunch behind.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking to the Senate reform bill.

First, let me say that I am very disappointed that the government has put up no speakers. I wonder just how important this bill is to the Conservatives if they have nothing to say.

As members know, New Democrats have long advocated for abolishing the Senate. This has been our position since the 1930s. Very recent polling shows that Canadians are open to having a closer examination of the value of the Senate in the 21st century and that we should carefully look at Senate abolition because it is achievable and it is a balanced solution.

The NDP believes that the Senate is a 19th century institution, an anachronism that is unnecessary in a modern 21st century democracy like Canada's. Senators only sit 90 days of the year and they cost taxpayers over $90 million annually. The Muskoka minister's $50 million pales in comparison. Democracies such as Denmark and New Zealand have long since eliminated their outdated senates. This decision was also undertaken many years ago by our own provincial governments. There are many who support the NDP position, including the premiers of several provinces.

For example, the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, stated in May of this year:

I support abolishing the Senate. I don't think the Senate plays a useful role. I think that they've outlived their usefulness to our country.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty echoed Ms. Clark's comments:

We think the simplest thing to do is abolish it, and I think, frankly, to reform it in any substantive way is just not possible. We have one elected accountable body that sits in Ottawa for us in the House of Commons. I just don't think we need a second, unelected, unaccountable body.

Even Conservative-friendly premiers condemn the Prime Minister's recent patronage appointments.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said, “It takes away momentum for change at the provincial level and it will probably increase calls that we hear from time to time saying, 'Do we really need this institution?'”

The Senate has become a repository of failed candidates, party fundraisers and professional organizers. These taxpayer subsidized Conservative senators even torpedo legislation passed by the elected members of Parliament. We are talking about bills passed by elected and accountable members of Parliament, such as the late Jack Layton's private member's bill to ensure action on climate change. Also, there was the member for Ottawa Centre's private member's bill to provide affordable AIDS drugs to those suffering in Africa. Both bills were killed by the Senate.

Both of these bills were extremely important and valuable not only to Canadians, but to people around the world. These bills were an opportunity for Canada to shine on the international stage, but the unelected Senate trashed them and left Canadians wondering what on earth has happened to our democracy.

New Democrats would like to abolish the Senate.

In addition to what has already been discussed, this bill has some other problems. It restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008 to a single, non-renewable nine-year term. Senators would never have to be accountable for campaign promises they made because they would not have to keep them, or for any of the actions that they had taken while in office.

Provinces and territories are given the opportunity to hold elections if they choose. These elections are at the cost of the provinces. The prime minister can then decide if she or he wishes to appoint the senators, but there is absolutely nothing holding the prime minister to appointing anyone who has been elected.

Several provinces have indicated that they have no intention of holding Senate elections. The Province of Quebec has been perfectly clear and called the legislation unconstitutional and said Quebec will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

The Conservatives and the Liberals seem intent on maintaining an antiquated institution that they have increasingly used for partisan purposes.

New Democrats understand that the Senate is unnecessary and does not serve to further our democracy in any way at all. We will continue our call for a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. In the meantime, we will work hard to expose the dangers that the Conservative agenda on Senate reform pose to the very fabric of our democracy.

Six years ago when the Prime Minister was opposition leader, he knew there was something wrong with an unelected Senate. He thought it was unfair. He called it undemocratic. He also said an appointed Senate, a relic of the 19th century, was what we had. He did not like how the prime minister holds a virtual free hand in the selection of senators. He promised that if he ever got the chance to be the prime minister, he would not name appointed people to the Senate. He insisted that anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people he or she represents.

However, the Prime Minister has turned his back on those democratic principles. Instead of solving the problem, he is becoming the problem. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the most significant number of senators in one day. Who are his appointees? The Conservative Party faithful: spin doctors, fundraisers, bagmen, insiders, people such as his former press secretary, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director through two elections, and let us not forget the several defeated Conservative candidates who were rejected by the voters.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise to do politics differently. Not only does he play the same old politics, he plays them better than anyone else, and I mean that in a very negative way.

Last fall the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation the Prime Minister simply did not like.

The climate change accountability bill was Canada's only federal climate change legislation. It passed twice in a minority parliament. It was good, solid legislation supported by a majority of elected MPs, legislation embodying the direction Canadians want to take. On November 16, 2010, the Senate defeated Bill C-311 at second reading. There was no committee review or witness hearings. Canada's only legislative effort to fight climate change was gone, killed by the unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Now unelected Senators seem poised to do the same thing to the NDP labour critic's bill requiring Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages. Former Bill C-232 was duly passed by elected MPs in the previous Parliament, and is now Bill C-208.

Just because someone flipped pancakes for the Conservative Party of Canada does not give that individual the right to override the wishes of elected MPs.

Too often today's Senate is doing partisan work for public money. Speaking of money, Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with a slow economic recovery, and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks.

Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $90 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs and trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out, or scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,300 a year for a three-day work week. Add in travel and expenses and each senator is costing us about $859,000 a year, all for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that do matter to people, such as creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building decent futures for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders just is not high on my or anyone's list.

[Seniors, November 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the CPP is a good plan, but it needs to be reformed and we have seen none of that. In fact, the only response from the government is another private pension scheme.

The member opposite clearly did not hear my question or has chosen not to answer. Tax breaks are not enough. On this side of the House, we did not vote for those tax breaks because they would do nothing to actually lift seniors out of poverty.

Seniors are being forced to use food banks and their retirement savings, if any, have been depleted by this economic downturn. We need real action, not lip service, and we can afford to do it. We have the means available now. We can and we must make investments because no one deserves to be left behind.

The Conservatives talk, but they do not do. It is time to do something for the impoverished seniors of our country. There is no time left. We need action now.